CFI Brussels - 2021/2476/A: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 09:52, 14 December 2023

CFI - 2021/2476/A

Court:	CFI Brussels (Belgium)
Jurisdiction:	Belgium
Relevant Law:	Article 77 GDPR 1382 Civil code 1382 code civil
Decided:	27.05.2022
Published:
Parties:
National Case Number/Name:	2021/2476/A
European Case Law Identifier:
Appeal from:
Appeal to:	Unknown
Original Language(s):	French
Original Source:	noyb (in French)
Initial Contributor:	n/a

The Brussels Tribunal held that the Belgian DPA improperly handled the case of a complainant and committed a breach of its duty of care by not handling his amicable resolution request within a reasonable period of time.

English Summary

Facts

Mr X had filed a complaint with the Belgian DPA because his ex-wife was posting pictures of his son on Facebook. The litigation Chamber closed the case. The litigation Chamber further suggested the complainant to request a mediation to a dedicated service within the DPA, in order to reach an amicable settlement witht he other party. The complainant started the procedure on 30 December 2019 and only received an answer from the DPA on 18 May 2020. After several reminders, on 1 October 2020, the DPA informed the complainant that the mediation did not succeed. The complainant sued the DPA for damages before the Brussels court for not dealing with his case in a timely manner and with the appropriate care.

Holding

The Tribunal held that the Belgian DPA lacked diligence on the following grounds. First, no explanation was given to the complainant on the different steps undertaken to handle the complaint, despite the numerous reminders sent by the complainant. Second, no response was provided despite the DPA having committed to do so before 15 August 2020. Third, not having handled the case within a reasonable period of time. The DPA was ordered to pay a symbolic amount of 1 euro to the complainant, since no further damage could be demonstrated by the complainant as a consequence of the lack of diligence.

Comment

Share your comments here!

Further Resources

Share blogs or news articles here!

English Machine Translation of the Decision

The decision below is a machine translation of the French original. Please refer to the French original for more details.

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 |Court-BG-Color=
 |Courtlogo=Courts_logo1.png
-|Court_Abbrevation=Trib. Civ. Bruxelles
+|Court_Abbrevation=CFI
-|Court_With_Country=Trib. Civ. Bruxelles (Belgium)
+|Court_With_Country=CFI Brussels (Belgium)
 |Case_Number_Name=2021/2476/A
@@ Line 62: / Line 62: @@
 }}
-A Brussels Tribunal confirmed that the BE DPA did not properly handled the case of a complainant and committed a breach of its duty of care by leaving the complainant in the dark for 9 months about the handling of his request to reach an amicable solution within a reasonable period of time.
+The Brussels Tribunal held that the Belgian DPA improperly handled the case of a complainant and committed a breach of its duty of care by not handling his amicable resolution request within a reasonable period of time.
 == English Summary ==
 === Facts ===
-Mr X filed a complaint with the BE DPA because his ex-wilfe was posting pictures of his son on Facebook. The litigation Chamber closed the case and suggested to the complainant to ask a mediation to the dedicated service within the DPA to reach an amicable settlement. The complainant sent such a request on 30/12/2019 but only received an answer from the DPA on 18 May 2020. After several reminders, the APD informed the complainant on 1 October 2020 that the mediation did not succeed. The complainant sued the APD for damages before the Brussels court, for not dealing with his case in a timely and with the appropriate care.
+Mr X had filed a complaint with the Belgian DPA because his ex-wife was posting pictures of his son on Facebook. The litigation Chamber closed the case. The litigation Chamber further suggested the complainant to request a mediation to a dedicated service within the DPA, in order to reach an amicable settlement witht he other party. The complainant started the procedure on 30 December 2019 and only received an answer from the DPA on 18 May 2020. After several reminders, on 1 October 2020, the DPA informed the complainant that the mediation did not succeed. The complainant sued the DPA for damages before the Brussels court for not dealing with his case in a timely manner and with the appropriate care.
 === Holding ===
-The Tribunal held that the APD lacked of diligence on the following grounds:
+The Tribunal held that the Belgian DPA lacked diligence on the following grounds. First, no explanation was given to the complainant on the different steps undertaken to handle the complaint, despite the numerous reminders sent by the complainant. Second, no response was provided despite the DPA having committed to do so before 15 August 2020. Third, not having handled the case within a reasonable period of time. The DPA was ordered to pay a symbolic amount of 1 euro to the complainant, since no further damage could be demonstrated by the complainant as a consequence of the lack of diligence.
-- no explanation was given to the complainant on the different steps undertaken to handle the complaint, despite the numerous reminders sent by the complainant
-- not having answered to the complainant despite having committed to provide an answer before 15 August 2020
-- not having handled the case within a reasonable period of time
-The DPA is order to pay 1 euro to the complainant, as a symbolic amount, since no other damage could be demonstrated by the complainant as a consequence of the lack of diligence.
 == Comment ==
 ''Share your comments here!''